"... it is no longer wise to ignore it."

YouTube: Our main story was about Donald Trump. We can't believe we're saying that either.
MilkmanDansays...

I still want to see President Drumph.

The fact that he represents the biggest trainwreck that American politics has ever faced is precisely *why* I hope he gets elected. The system is already a hopelessly broken dog and pony show; maybe the faster we shit on its grave, the faster it becomes blatantly fubared enough to prompt the amount of revolutionary outcry needed to fix it.

Even if *that* doesn't happen, though, Drumph has already started the self-destruct timer on the GOP. That *desperately* needed to happen -- but the impact will be all the better if he beats out the GOP "great white hope" establishment candidates like Rubio. Drudge Report even claims that Mitt Romney will "enter the race" or possibly run as an independent (propped up by GOP $$$) if Rubio and Cruz don't make up ground.

I don't see the GOP surviving much more of this, which is a very positive outcome. So, thank you Drumph, and keep up the good (by which I mean abysmal) work!

cosmovitellisays...

GOP goes down = fine.
Trump compromises the US and forces the shadow government (NSA CIA Pentagon etc) to quietly change the rules to maintain order = end of the US as we know it.

siftbotsays...

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, February 29th, 2016 12:13am PST - promote requested by dag.

RedSkysays...

There's polling that Trump would be neck and neck with Clinton but I think that's baloney and in the general he will get slaughtered since his support base right now is a fairly curated group of the Republican base and in the general he will face tougher questions from the left. The pollsters like Rove already know this and there is some ideas being floated around that the GOP itself may campaign on "vote for a Congress to contain Hilary" rather than even backing Trump.

A big loss would almost certainly trigger some kind of GOP rethink. After McCain's loss the outcome seems to have been to restructure to become more radical and purist, with the Tea Party rise. Since Trump is close enough to a Tea Party candidate the hope is that after a big loss, the Republican party restructures, throws off its extremism and moves towards the center. I think this is inevitable as US youth is highly liberal and minority demographics will eventually determine elections but it may still be some years, maybe a decade before that begins to really matter.

Harzzachsays...

They will loose with a Trump nomination, they will loose with an independent Trump. They will even loose when Trump suddenly vanishes, because they NEED the Tea Party votes to even have a fighting chance. Its a loose-loose situation. Good for the Dems, bad for the States. Having only a Two Party System is not good, but having only one valid political party left is not something i would call a democracy. Sane republicans have to finally get their shit together!

MilkmanDansaid:

I don't see the GOP surviving much more of this, which is a very positive outcome.

radxsays...

Part of me wants Clinton vs Drumpf for the pure entertainment value. Just imagine all the skeletons buried in that chest of emails on HRC's server and how Drumpf would slap her silly with it.

But then I remember that Drumpf openly advocates in favour of torture and war crimes, which should disqualify his ass from holding any public office. At the same time, the Syrian refugees down the street from here are a keen reminder that HRC has been a major proponent of bombing brown people, and I don't believe for a second that she wouldn't sign off on waterboarding without hesitation.

So, nevermind #makedonalddrumpfagain and #whichhillary -- you've got yourselves some genuine barbarians running for the office of bomber in chief.

heropsychosays...

The problem is that sets up what reminds me of the 2000 election. It absolutely astounded me half the country thought George W. Bush was a valid candidate, let alone the better candidate than Al Gore, not that I liked Gore, but given the choice between the two, Gore had viable plans for the budget, a cohesive foreign policy, etc.

It shouldn't have been a close election, but not only was it razor close, Gore lost. Countless times there have been in world history leaders who came about who generally wouldn't and shouldn't have, but they did. All it takes is a bad recession or other event to tilt the odds in their favor at the right time. Hitler doesn't come to power without the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles leaving Germany dependent on US loans.

And to me, Trump is absolutely frightening. I honestly have absolutely no idea what he would do as President, and not in a good way. I quite honestly don't even know if he's actually in line with the Tea Party or not. It is terrifying to me that he's on a course where potentially a recession at the wrong time could make him president because so many voters are absolutely ignorant or stupid enough to support him.

Screw the entertainment value of it. I keep thinking back to the George W. Bush Iraqi occupation and the crapshow that was Katrina and realize people's lives are literally at stake by botching the selection of the next President, and when you make one option completely invalid before the election even starts, it doesn't help.

radxsaid:

Part of me wants Clinton vs Drumpf for the pure entertainment value. Just imagine all the skeletons buried in that chest of emails on HRC's server and how Drumpf would slap her silly with it.

RFlaggsays...

I got to disagree that they need the Tea Party vote... well they need the Tea Party's great love, Fox News, Rush. and all the other far right nutters, so they try to appeal to the Tea Party more specifically, but I think that's why they've lost the last two elections.

McCain, had he ran as the centralist candidate he has been in the Senate, was very electable. Unfortunately for the party he stepped to the right in his campaign to appeal to what would become the Tea Party. Then he went over the deep end by choosing a VP candidate that was certifiably crazy and too far to the right for the Nation to take seriously. All in an attempt to appeal to the far right.

Then the party mishandles Obamacare. Rather than own up to it, and say "hey, this is the same plan we tried to pass 3 times into federal law. The Democrats wanted a single payer system, Obama was promising a government option, but they in the end took our plan." Instead they try to run the thing into the ground, and build on the far right anger over it, rather than appeal to where the Nation actually was. Obama's re-election was largely because of Obamacare, something the party and it's media machines like Fox don't understand. To be fair in 2008, I don't think anyone could have predicted the rise of Obama, but the fact his message took off so well, should have been a sign to the Republican party the country was trying to move back to the center from the pull to the right of the Bush years.

Romney could have ran with that further, saying how Romneycare is the model for Obamacare and that his state was the one who really started the ball rolling. Romney as he was as governor was far more electable at the national level than the Romney we got during the campaign... and again there is an appeal to the Tea Party with a Washington Insider but solid Tea Party member in Ryan.

The Republican party has a near solid slam dunk if they put up Rubio/Kasich ticket. It's a moderate ticket that has broad appeal to the masses of America without making most liberals/progressives so afraid that they'll show up in droves the way a Trump ticket does (or a Cruz ticket to a slightly smaller extent). The far right would still vote for Rubio/Kasich over Clinton/Sander (or Clinton/Warren, Clinton/Kucinich... she needs a solid, well known progressive to give her the best chance of winning), so the Rubio/Kasich is safe from all sides.

I agree though, a Trump ticket spells doom for the party period. Not only do they loose the Presidential election, the fact so many Republicans fear Trump's near Fascism will mean they might stay home, and the liberals/progressives will show up in greater than normal numbers to insure he doesn't win, which means a possible to likely loss of control of the Senate. Cruz won't scare away the Republican base as much, but still bring out more liberals/progressives than normal, which likely means a loss of the Presidential election, but perhaps not as much of a loss of the Senate. A Rubio/Kasich combo ticket is safe and gives the best broad appeal... or course if they did go Rubio, they'd tie him up with a Tea Party candidate to pull those votes in, as they don't understand they need to really shed those people and let them form their own party... I think they fear that Fox News, Rush and the like will follow the new Tea Party line rather than the mainstream Republican party and they want that attention... they are so wrapped up in the echo chamber now they don't see the nation is far more to the center than they are willing to go. The fact that Obama is far closer to Regan era style Republicans than most anyone in the race today speaks volumes to how disconnected the party is from reality.

Meanwhile, I'll wish for a Sanders/Warren or Sanders/Kucinich ticket... though realistically, he needs a young moderate up coming Democrat to broaden his appeal... and let's face it, odds are it'll be Clinton, whom I fear the Republican's first day of action will be to try an impeach her over the email and Benghazi... I mean we've had what? 3 or 4 times as many hearings on how she handled Benghazi than we had over 9/11, even though there are tons of fishy things going on with that too (without having to go into crazy conspiracy theories). So go... Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.

Harzzachsaid:

They will loose with a Trump nomination, they will loose with an independent Trump. They will even loose when Trump suddenly vanishes, because they NEED the Tea Party votes to even have a fighting chance. Its a loose-loose situation. Good for the Dems, bad for the States. Having only a Two Party System is not good, but having only one valid political party left is not something i would call a democracy. Sane republicans have to finally get their shit together!

Mookalsays...

Goooo Raiders!

Wait is this not the NFL? Where we choose a side to root for based on arbitrary allegiances vaguely formed by perception, statistics, personal vendettas and disagreements with opinions, views and a native alliance attributed by regional position and upbringing? Whoever wins the Super Bowl, in the end we're all losers and the cycle will continue in the coming years.

Then again, I'm not one for getting involved in modern media politics. Vote for the least terrible and get back to work!

/Rant

Side note: Where the heck do I get my Trump steaks with Sharper Image (online) no longer carrying them?

kingmobsays...

It's so scary even the outliers (Oliver and Company) have to acknowledge his existence.

I don't pray anymore but I hope so bad he doesn't get elected.

ulysses1904says...

For me the age of "It's like a train wreck and I can't look away." and "it's so bad that it's good" is long over. There is no entertainment value, it's mediocrity on a pedestal. I wish this country would grow the fuck up.

Sagemindsays...

I would never vote for Trump, but I would choose him over Clinton, because he seems less evil to me.
Less competent, but Clinton seems like she would be using her power for evil and screwing the poeple at every turn for in favor of herself and her business pals.

Trump on the other hand, could never run the country but he would choose the people who could. He has such a big mouth that we'd know everything he was doing, or at least, he'd trip over his words and we'd get to see right through him.

If it comes to picking the less evil, Trump is your man.

ChaosEnginesays...

I don't think Clinton is outright evil. Cunning and manipulative, yeah, but no more so than any other politician.

Drumpf on the other hand, is worse than evil. If he was some kind of evil genius, that would be one thing, but all his faults are born out of the laziness and arrogance.

He's still not as bad as Cruz though.

Sagemindsaid:

I would never vote for Trump, but I would choose him over Clinton, because he seems less evil to me.
Less competent, but Clinton seems like she would be using her power for evil and screwing the poeple at every turn for in favor of herself and her business pals.

Trump on the other hand, could never run the country but he would choose the people who could. He has such a big mouth that we'd know everything he was doing, or at least, he'd trip over his words and we'd get to see right through him.

If it comes to picking the less evil, Trump is your man.

newtboysays...

OMG!!!
I could not disagree more.
Trump wrote a book about how to lie your way to 'success', the truth simply is not within that man. 2 days ago he claimed to not know the KKK or David Duke, but 8-10 years ago he refused to join any organization that Duke supported...so what happened? It can't be true he doesn't remember, he said he has the best memory in the world, remember? So he's just lying again, right? It is how he said you get what you want, just lie until you get it, then forget all the lies you told and insult and attack anyone bringing them up.
He's also totally incompetent, failing over and over at businesses, including one business that's nearly impossible to lose at, casinos, he's had 3, and bankrupted all of them 4 times! Then there are Trump steaks, vodka, magazine, mortgage, the game, airlines, and even his terribly named web site...gotrump.com (supposed to be go-trump, not got-rump). He claims to be a successful builder, but he doesn't build things, he just stamps his name on things others build. I think the reason he won't release his taxes is they will show he's actually lost money, never made any, and is only rich today because he was once massively rich (thanks to a huge inheritance and before that, no interest, 'never pay it back' loans from daddy) and lost a ton of money, both his and investors, not because he ever made money or was particularly successful at anything...contrary to what he says.
So, the contention that he 'knows the best people and will put together a team of greatness' goes against his record of putting together teams that fail miserably at businesses that are idiot proof! The contention that his big mouth will let us in on what he's doing supposes that he'll tell the truth...something he never does.
Clinton may have no spine, be a liar, and may wave whatever way the wind blows (all 3 of which Trump trumps her on), but for 'more evil', Trump is definitely your man.

Sagemindsaid:

I would never vote for Trump, but I would choose him over Clinton, because he seems less evil to me.
Less competent, but Clinton seems like she would be using her power for evil and screwing the poeple at every turn for in favor of herself and her business pals.

Trump on the other hand, could never run the country but he would choose the people who could. He has such a big mouth that we'd know everything he was doing, or at least, he'd trip over his words and we'd get to see right through him.

If it comes to picking the less evil, Trump is your man.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More